A Finnish study warns the world may lack enough minerals for the energy transition, especially for batteries needed for EVs and storage. Critics say the study overestimates mineral needs and ignores other flexibility options like grid management. It’s a wake-up call, but some claims seem exaggerated, so we should check the facts carefully.
"To have, or not to have- that is the question", like Hamlet faced the dilemma on minerals.
Geological survey of Finland (GTK) and their A/Prof S. Michaux faced too, and answered:
“World doesn’t have enough mineral reserves for the energy transition”
What's that all about?🧵
Shakespeare aside, in more specific terms GTK describe in their study that:
“It is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EV’s and stationary power storage."
Seems worth checking out.
The report has acquired some high praises in Finnish media and social media.
It has been said that: “every decision maker and citizen should read it though.”
Internationally it has also got quite a lot likeminded attention from the energy transition and renewable energy skeptics alike.
Simon himself has been in the Finnish press claiming that “humanity has been taken over by blind faith.”
And: “The claim that technology will safe us, doesn’t respect the reality of mineral resource quantity or their availability.”
In the same article he claims that “the production, assembly and disassembly of windturbines and solar panels might in theory require more energy than what they produce during their lifetime.”
That would meen an EROI (energy return on investment) of less than one for wind & PV.
However, in this recently published literature review and harmonization study of different EROI value studies, wind and PV have EROI values
Well above > 10.
To me that Michaux claim/ estimate seems bit of an outlier.
@Peters_Glen
When the Energy Return On Investment (EROI) is measured at the point of energy use, "PV, wind & hydropower have EROIs >=10 while the EROIs for thermal fuels vary significantly, with ... oil notably <10"
👍 Electricity grid flexibility and reliability for seasonal wind & solar intermitted supply cannot only rely on batteries. >> That's why it's rarely suggested.
👍 The call for open discussion about understanding the transition and its requirements.
Don’t get me wrong. This study must be taken seriously because it comes with such a strategic magnitude.
This is a wakeup call to mineral reserves and their development, but it is counter-initiative to come up with such exaggerated claims.
You can do better, GTK.
The first report was published August 2021 and has 985 pages but there are NONE explicitly stated mineral requirements for transition.
Still they claim to know best the energy transition mineral requirements.
GTK's study fails to look the seasonal storage from global perspective, with all the geographical variations.
Most of the people live in southern latitudes, where seasonal intermittency of solar, for instance, is less of an issue. Map @undertheraedar
Why is GTK's estimate is so much off from the others?
- They assume that we need a FOUR-week stationary battery (672h) for wind and solar power.
Here's a study that estimates that li-ion batteries are pricewise optimal for only < 16h of storage, in 2040.
Wouldn’t it be odd if we used only batteries to mitigate electricity grid flexibility.
The World Energy Outlook 2022 offer much more holistic approach to this matter.
Batteries account only 20-25% of the flexibility demand by 2050 in different scenarios.
Seems like something is missing from this “overall mineral requirement study” that the others take into account, but I’m afraid to say that this is not the end of it.
There’s another, even bigger elephant in the room, which you might have noticed.
In fact, couple of them.
The second part of the study comes with even bigger number of stationary battery storage= 2017 TWh.
The main reason for this is a 3,5-factor increase in wind & solar share, and the assumption of the global 672h of stationary battery storage still remains.
Like the first part of the study, 2nd has not been peer-reviewed.
In fact, it has not even been published…
Most of these online circulating mineral requirement claims are based on the presentation set.
That’s where I got these numbers, too.
Professor Eliot Jacobson praised this 2nd (unpublished) part of the study as a:
"Proof that green energy transition is a bright green lie."
So let's have a look at the numbers.
@EliotJacobson
If you need proof that the "green energy" transition is a bright green lie, look no further than the brilliant work of Prof. Simon Michaux who quantified the total metals required for one generation of technology to phase out fossil fuels. Here is a summary of what he found: https://t.co/abeyvzKi3h
So much so, for the energy transition predictability, I guess.
For instance, why annual nuclear generation decreases by almost 8000 TWh?
That’s almost 500 Olkiluoto 3 sized (1600MW) reactors gone.
Here are the original tables.
The 2nd study leaves us with the 27 600 TWh of wind & solar generation which based on their study requires FOUR weeks of 2017 TWh of stationary battery storage.
Only now we can deal the mineral requirements because they are so heavily influenced by these assumptions.
As a sidenote, I don't have time to check every mineral requirement of every technology but seems like Michaux mostly refers to IEA data.
However the EV battery metal requirement estimate comes with some peculiarities.
For instance, the EV battery minerals quantities seem quite inflated in comparison to IEA battery chemistry predictions assuming "2030 Constrained-scenario".
These things matter when predicting 66 TWh of batteries.
EV battery mineral requirement is not the main issue here, however.
It is the battery storage, as you might have expected.
Most of the stationary storage is based on LFP but other chemistries exist too.
Let's take a closer look how it affects the copper demand estimation.
Copper estimate has 4576 Mt total cumulative copper demand in GTK 2nd study.
Out of this, stationary battery storage requires 4370 Mt, which is 95,5% of the total amount.
All the other technologies require only 4,5%. -I mean all.
"To have, or not to have- that is the question", like Hamlet faced the dilemma on minerals.
Geological survey of Finland (GTK) and their A/Prof S. Michaux faced too, and answered:
“World doesn’t have enough mineral reserves for the energy transition”
What's that all about?🧵Shakespeare aside, in more specific terms GTK describe in their study that:
“It is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EV’s and stationary power storage."
Seems worth checking out.The report has acquired some high praises in Finnish media and social media.
It has been said that: “every decision maker and citizen should read it though.”Internationally it has also got quite a lot likeminded attention from the energy transition and renewable energy skeptics alike.Simon himself has been in the Finnish press claiming that “humanity has been taken over by blind faith.”
And: “The claim that technology will safe us, doesn’t respect the reality of mineral resource quantity or their availability.”In the same article he claims that “the production, assembly and disassembly of windturbines and solar panels might in theory require more energy than what they produce during their lifetime.”
That would meen an EROI (energy return on investment) of less than one for wind & PV.However, in this recently published literature review and harmonization study of different EROI value studies, wind and PV have EROI values
Well above > 10.
To me that Michaux claim/ estimate seems bit of an outlier.I hope I got your attention by now.
As they put in this call for action:”It’s time to wake up”
So, let’s wake up, and check these numbers because the immediate after question should be:
"Yes, but for what?"Positives from the study:
👍 Electricity grid flexibility and reliability for seasonal wind & solar intermitted supply cannot only rely on batteries. >> That's why it's rarely suggested.
👍 The call for open discussion about understanding the transition and its requirements.Don’t get me wrong. This study must be taken seriously because it comes with such a strategic magnitude.
This is a wakeup call to mineral reserves and their development, but it is counter-initiative to come up with such exaggerated claims.
You can do better, GTK.The first report was published August 2021 and has 985 pages but there are NONE explicitly stated mineral requirements for transition.
Still they claim to know best the energy transition mineral requirements.
That should make one consider, shouldn’t it.Only one graph, page 651 states that the we will run out of mineral reserves.
It’s based on assumption that we need a 574 TWh of stationary battery storage for intermitted energy production (wind & solar).
Electric vehicles make only 10% of that cumulative amount.So how big number 574 TWh battery storage is?
Assuming 70 kWh battery size for vehicles, that would be enough for 8,2 billion electric vehicles.
Though, it would take us 102 years with current car production levels, if we would ever have such a capability.The first report estimates were only based on NMC-811 battery chemistry which seems less likely primary chemistry, especially in stationary storage.
We critizised this, and other assumptions in September with @T1Heikkila and @MattiKahra (Finnish).How much more 574 TWh is than the others predict?
1⃣IEA NZE Scenario 2050
- 3,86 TW of power
- 6h storage= 23,2 TWh (range from 1-8h)
- wind & solar share 69%
2⃣S&P estimate is around 8,1 TWh.
3⃣BNEF estimate 4,5 TWh
That is not a modest estimate.U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has published a study (2022) which claims that US can reach
94% of RE-share with 6 TWh and 930 GW stationary battery. Wind & solar share is 71%.
That means only 6,5h of capacity.GTK's study fails to look the seasonal storage from global perspective, with all the geographical variations.
Most of the people live in southern latitudes, where seasonal intermittency of solar, for instance, is less of an issue. Map @undertheraedarWhy is GTK's estimate is so much off from the others?
- They assume that we need a FOUR-week stationary battery (672h) for wind and solar power.
Here's a study that estimates that li-ion batteries are pricewise optimal for only < 16h of storage, in 2040.Wouldn’t it be odd if we used only batteries to mitigate electricity grid flexibility.
The World Energy Outlook 2022 offer much more holistic approach to this matter.
Batteries account only 20-25% of the flexibility demand by 2050 in different scenarios.Seems like something is missing from this “overall mineral requirement study” that the others take into account, but I’m afraid to say that this is not the end of it.
There’s another, even bigger elephant in the room, which you might have noticed.
In fact, couple of them.The second part of the study comes with even bigger number of stationary battery storage= 2017 TWh.
The main reason for this is a 3,5-factor increase in wind & solar share, and the assumption of the global 672h of stationary battery storage still remains.Like the first part of the study, 2nd has not been peer-reviewed.
In fact, it has not even been published…
Most of these online circulating mineral requirement claims are based on the presentation set.
That’s where I got these numbers, too.Professor Eliot Jacobson praised this 2nd (unpublished) part of the study as a:
"Proof that green energy transition is a bright green lie."
So let's have a look at the numbers.The main reason for inflated mineral requirements is the increase in Renewable energy production (mainly wind and solar).
That puts this 2nd (unpublished) study more in-line with other RE-scenarios.
The changes between 1st and 2nd study in production estimates are large.The additional power estimate difference between the studies from 2021 and 2022 are:
Wind increases 168%
Solar increases 497%
Nuclear decreases -75%
Hydro decreases -71%
So much so, for the energy transition predictability, I guess.For instance, why annual nuclear generation decreases by almost 8000 TWh?
That’s almost 500 Olkiluoto 3 sized (1600MW) reactors gone.
Here are the original tables.The 2nd study leaves us with the 27 600 TWh of wind & solar generation which based on their study requires FOUR weeks of 2017 TWh of stationary battery storage.
Only now we can deal the mineral requirements because they are so heavily influenced by these assumptions.As a sidenote, I don't have time to check every mineral requirement of every technology but seems like Michaux mostly refers to IEA data.
However the EV battery metal requirement estimate comes with some peculiarities.For instance, the EV battery minerals quantities seem quite inflated in comparison to IEA battery chemistry predictions assuming "2030 Constrained-scenario".
Lithium:
- Michaux 14kg/EV
- IEA 7kg/EV
>>>That's 100% more!
These things matter when predicting 66 TWh of batteries.EV battery mineral requirement is not the main issue here, however.
It is the battery storage, as you might have expected.
Most of the stationary storage is based on LFP but other chemistries exist too.
Let's take a closer look how it affects the copper demand estimation.Copper estimate has 4576 Mt total cumulative copper demand in GTK 2nd study.
Out of this, stationary battery storage requires 4370 Mt, which is 95,5% of the total amount.
All the other technologies require only 4,5%. -I mean all.
yes
"To have, or not to have- that is the question", like Hamlet faced the dilemma on minerals.
Geological survey of Finland (GTK) and their A/Prof S. Michaux faced too, and answered:
“World doesn’t have enough mineral reserves for the energy transition”
What's that all about?🧵 ... Shakespeare aside, in more specific terms GTK describe in their study that:
“It is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EV’s and stationary power storage."
Seems worth checking out. ... The report has acquired some high praises in Finnish media and social media.
It has been said that: “every decision maker and citizen should read it though.” ... Internationally it has also got quite a lot likeminded attention from the energy transition and renewable energy skeptics alike. ... Simon himself has been in the Finnish press claiming that “humanity has been taken over by blind faith.”
And: “The claim that technology will safe us, doesn’t respect the reality of mineral resource quantity or their availability.” ... In the same article he claims that “the production, assembly and disassembly of windturbines and solar panels might in theory require more energy than what they produce during their lifetime.”
That would meen an EROI (energy return on investment) of less than one for wind & PV. ... However, in this recently published literature review and harmonization study of different EROI value studies, wind and PV have EROI values
Well above > 10.
To me that Michaux claim/ estimate seems bit of an outlier. ... I hope I got your attention by now.
As they put in this call for action:”It’s time to wake up”
So, let’s wake up, and check these numbers because the immediate after question should be:
"Yes, but for what?" ... Positives from the study:
Electricity grid flexibility and reliability for seasonal wind & solar intermitted supply cannot only rely on batteries. >> That's why it's rarely suggested.
The call for open discussion about understanding the transition and its requirements. ... Don’t get me wrong. This study must be taken seriously because it comes with such a strategic magnitude.
This is a wakeup call to mineral reserves and their development, but it is counter-initiative to come up with such exaggerated claims.
You can do better, GTK. ... The first report was published August 2021 and has 985 pages but there are NONE explicitly stated mineral requirements for transition.
Still they claim to know best the energy transition mineral requirements.
That should make one consider, shouldn’t it. ... Only one graph, page 651 states that the we will run out of mineral reserves.
It’s based on assumption that we need a 574 TWh of stationary battery storage for intermitted energy production (wind & solar).
Electric vehicles make only 10% of that cumulative amount. ... So how big number 574 TWh battery storage is?
Assuming 70 kWh battery size for vehicles, that would be enough for 8,2 billion electric vehicles.
Though, it would take us 102 years with current car production levels, if we would ever have such a capability. ... The first report estimates were only based on NMC-811 battery chemistry which seems less likely primary chemistry, especially in stationary storage.
We critizised this, and other assumptions in September with @T1Heikkila and @MattiKahra (Finnish). ... How much more 574 TWh is than the others predict?
1⃣IEA NZE Scenario 2050
- 3,86 TW of power
- 6h storage= 23,2 TWh (range from 1-8h)
- wind & solar share 69%
2⃣S&P estimate is around 8,1 TWh.
3⃣BNEF estimate 4,5 TWh
That is not a modest estimate. ... U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has published a study (2022) which claims that US can reach
94% of RE-share with 6 TWh and 930 GW stationary battery. Wind & solar share is 71%.
That means only 6,5h of capacity. ... GTK's study fails to look the seasonal storage from global perspective, with all the geographical variations.
Most of the people live in southern latitudes, where seasonal intermittency of solar, for instance, is less of an issue. Map @undertheraedar ... Why is GTK's estimate is so much off from the others?
- They assume that we need a FOUR-week stationary battery (672h) for wind and solar power.
Here's a study that estimates that li-ion batteries are pricewise optimal for only < 16h of storage, in 2040. ... Wouldn’t it be odd if we used only batteries to mitigate electricity grid flexibility.
The World Energy Outlook 2022 offer much more holistic approach to this matter.
Batteries account only 20-25% of the flexibility demand by 2050 in different scenarios. ... Seems like something is missing from this “overall mineral requirement study” that the others take into account, but I’m afraid to say that this is not the end of it.
There’s another, even bigger elephant in the room, which you might have noticed.
In fact, couple of them. ... The second part of the study comes with even bigger number of stationary battery storage= 2017 TWh.
The main reason for this is a 3,5-factor increase in wind & solar share, and the assumption of the global 672h of stationary battery storage still remains. ... Like the first part of the study, 2nd has not been peer-reviewed.
In fact, it has not even been published…
Most of these online circulating mineral requirement claims are based on the presentation set.
That’s where I got these numbers, too. ... Professor Eliot Jacobson praised this 2nd (unpublished) part of the study as a:
"Proof that green energy transition is a bright green lie."
So let's have a look at the numbers. ... The main reason for inflated mineral requirements is the increase in Renewable energy production (mainly wind and solar).
That puts this 2nd (unpublished) study more in-line with other RE-scenarios.
The changes between 1st and 2nd study in production estimates are large. ... The additional power estimate difference between the studies from 2021 and 2022 are:
Wind increases 168%
Solar increases 497%
Nuclear decreases -75%
Hydro decreases -71%
So much so, for the energy transition predictability, I guess. ... For instance, why annual nuclear generation decreases by almost 8000 TWh?
That’s almost 500 Olkiluoto 3 sized (1600MW) reactors gone.
Here are the original tables. ... The 2nd study leaves us with the 27 600 TWh of wind & solar generation which based on their study requires FOUR weeks of 2017 TWh of stationary battery storage.
Only now we can deal the mineral requirements because they are so heavily influenced by these assumptions. ... As a sidenote, I don't have time to check every mineral requirement of every technology but seems like Michaux mostly refers to IEA data.
However the EV battery metal requirement estimate comes with some peculiarities. ... For instance, the EV battery minerals quantities seem quite inflated in comparison to IEA battery chemistry predictions assuming "2030 Constrained-scenario".
Lithium:
- Michaux 14kg/EV
- IEA 7kg/EV
>>>That's 100% more!
These things matter when predicting 66 TWh of batteries. ... EV battery mineral requirement is not the main issue here, however.
It is the battery storage, as you might have expected.
Most of the stationary storage is based on LFP but other chemistries exist too.
Let's take a closer look how it affects the copper demand estimation. ... Copper estimate has 4576 Mt total cumulative copper demand in GTK 2nd study.
Out of this, stationary battery storage requires 4370 Mt, which is 95,5% of the total amount.
All the other technologies require only 4,5%. -I mean all.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
More Threads by @visaskn
A Finnish study warns the world may lack enough minerals for the energy transition, especially for batteries needed for ...
